Speaking of detailed rules and methods, as long as the trained army masters them and regards them as guidelines for action, then the theory of war will play a role in the combat process. All regulations concerning formation, training, and field operations should belong to rules and methods. The detailed rules include provisions related to training, and the methods include provisions related to field operations. In actual combat, these detailed rules and methods are very useful ready-made methods, and these ready-made methods are often included in the combat theory.
However, it is impossible to formulate detailed rules for the activities of free use of the army, nor can it formulate fixed rules, because rules cannot be used freely. The method is the general law of the task, which can inject the spirit of the principles and rules into the practical application. As long as it maintains its own identity and does not become an absolute and rigid set of rules of action, but a shortcut to replace individual decision, it is the best method in general rules, and it is sufficient to include it in the theory of warfare.
It is very important and indispensable to act according to methods in combat. We can think about how many actions in a war are determined based on complete assumptions and under conditions where the situation is completely unclear. With this in mind, the above point of view is not difficult to understand. Because the enemy will do everything possible to prevent us from understanding the situations that have an impact on our strategic deployment, and time does not allow us to fully understand these situations. Even if we master these situations, it will be too wide and too complicated. , And cannot adjust all military deployments based on them, so we often can only deploy based on certain possible situations. We also understand that there are endless situations that need to be considered at the same time in all incidents. We have no other feasible way apart from making a rough estimate and deploying based on what may happen or the general situation. Finally, we have to say that the lower the position, the greater the number of officers, so it is impossible for all of them to have independent insights and mature judgment. In addition to the general insights obtained from the service rules and experience, they cannot be forced to have other higher insights. Therefore, we must teach them some methods similar to the rules, as the basis for their judgment, to prevent them from exceeding Random thinking is routine, because it is very dangerous in fields that require experience.
It must be admitted that methodism is not only indispensable, but in a sense, it also has great advantages, that is, to use the same method repeatedly to make the command more precise, skilled and reliable, thereby reducing resistance in war. , So that the war proceeded smoothly along the predetermined trajectory.
The lower the position, the more methods can be used, the greater the effect, and the more indispensable; the higher the position, the fewer methods suitable for use, and the highest position, the method is completely useless. Therefore, methods play a greater role in tactics than in strategy.
From the highest point of view of war, the composition of war does not originate from countless small events that are similar and small, and how well they are handled depends on how well they are handled. It is composed of major events that need to be handled separately and are of decisive significance. War is not like a field full of crops, but like a land full of trees. When harvesting crops, there is no need to consider the growth of each plant, and the quality of the harvest depends on the sharpness of the sickle; when using an axe to cut down large trees, the shape and growth of each tree must be considered.
In military activities, the number of methods used does not depend on the position of the commander, but on the importance of the matter. The task of the commander-in-chief is comprehensive and important, so a specific method is rarely used. If the commander adopts traditional methods in combat formation, avant-garde and outposts, not only will his subordinates have a sense of restraint, he will also have a certain restraint in certain circumstances. It is true that these methods may have been invented by him, or he may have borrowed from others according to the situation, but as long as these methods are based on the general characteristics of the army and weapons, they can become the object of theoretical research. However, like machine-made products, it is absolutely impossible to formulate a battle plan in a fixed manner according to the same method, and it must be resolutely opposed.
When the combat research is not perfect enough, and there is no satisfactory theory, people in higher positions sometimes need to use methodism, because some people in higher positions do not have the opportunity to improve through specialized research and upper-level life experience. Yourself. They always seem at a loss when facing unrealistic and contradictory theories and criticisms. The book knowledge they accept cannot recognize these things. In this case, besides relying on practical experience, they also don’t think about it. There are other better ways. Therefore, when it is necessary to deal with the problem separately, they will naturally use the method derived from experience, that is, imitate the unique action method of the Supreme Commander. In this way, methodism will naturally arise. The diagonal battle formation was used by the generals of Frederick the Great, and the encirclement of the long front was favored by the generals of the French Revolution, while the generals of Napoleon liked to concentrate their forces for bloody battles. In the repeated use of combat methods, we can clearly see a set of methods of attack. This shows that senior commanders will also imitate the methods of others. If there is a relatively complete set of military theories that can help study methods of warfare and help people who are striving to improve their intelligence and judgment, then the scope of imitation will be relatively small. And those indispensable methods may be the product of the theory itself, rather than simply imitating the result. No matter how perfect a great commander-in-chief handles things, there are more or less subjective things in his way of doing things. If he has his own specific style, then this style reflects his personality to a large extent. , But the generals who imitated him will not be exactly the same as him in personality.
However, it is neither possible nor correct to completely abandon subjective methodism or style in the methods of warfare. On the contrary, we should regard subjective methodism as a manifestation of the influence of war characteristics on certain phenomena. When the theory hasn't foreseen or studied this kind of influence, all you can rely on is methodism. Revolutionary war has its special tactics, which is very natural. However, which theories can include these characteristics in advance? But it is a pity that the methods produced under certain circumstances are very easy to be outdated, because the specific circumstances are constantly changing, but the method itself has not changed. Therefore, clear and reasonable criticism should be adopted to prevent the use of these outdated methods. In 1806, some Prussian generals, such as Prince Louis in Zalfelt, Tao Enqing in the Doryn Mountains in front of Jena, Gravelt in front of Capelendorf, and Lücher in Cappelen Behind Dorf, the entire army was wiped out because of the mechanical use of Frederick the Great’s diagonal battle formation; the same tactics caused Hornlohe’s army to suffer an unprecedented defeat. The reason is not only that this method has long been outdated, but also that methodism at that time led to extremely poor intelligence.
criticism
Theoretical truths have an impact on real life through criticism rather than provisions. Applying theoretical truths to actual events is criticism. Therefore, criticism not only brings theoretical truths closer to reality, but also makes people rely on these habits through repeated applications and thus believe in these truths more. We must not only determine which point of view to build the theory, but also determine which point of view to criticize.
We distinguish between critically discussing historical events and purely describing historical events. Simply describing historical events is often a list of specific facts, but at best tells some of the most direct causal relationships.
Critically discuss historical events, including three different intellectual activities.
The first is to verify historical facts that are questionable in history. This is purely historical research, which is different from theoretical research.
Second, infer the result from the cause. This is purely critical research. This kind of research method is indispensable to the theory, because the arguments that need to be confirmed, confirmed by practical experience, or need to be explained in the theory must be solved by this method.
Third, check the methods used. This is the real criticism, with both praise and criticism. Here, theories are used to study history, or more precisely, to learn lessons from history.
In the latter two, purely historical critical activities, the most important thing is to explore the source of things, that is, to clarify the unquestionable truth. It cannot be left halfway as usual, that is, it cannot be merely satisfied with some arbitrary making. Thesis or hypothesis.
When inferring conclusions from causes, there is often an insurmountable external difficulty, that is, the complete inability to understand the real cause. As far as real life and war are concerned, such difficulties often appear in wars. In a war, it is difficult to fully understand the truth of the incident, and the motives of the actions are even more difficult to clarify, because these motives are either deliberately hidden by the parties, or because they appear accidentally and briefly, so there is no record in history . Therefore, most critical research must be combined with historical research. Even so, sometimes the cause and the result may not coincide, which means that the result cannot be regarded as the inevitable or only product of the known cause. In this way, a disconnection phenomenon is bound to occur, that is, we cannot learn useful lessons from all historical events. What the theory can require is that once such a disconnection occurs, the research must be stopped and no further deduction is required. If you think that the known cause is enough to explain the result, and you pay too much attention to it, that's the worst.
In addition to the above-mentioned external difficulties in critical research, there is also a great internal difficulty, that is, very few results in war are caused by only one factor, and most of the results are produced by a combination of many reasons. Therefore, it is often not enough to simply trace the root causes of the incident. The key is to understand the different roles of each cause. In this case, it is necessary to deeply explore the nature of the cause, and then the critical research will naturally enter the pure theoretical field.
Critical research is to test the methods used to find out what results were produced by the military methods used by the commander at that time, and whether these results achieved the commander's military intentions.
To understand what kind of results the means will produce, we must study the nature of the means, and then research has entered the realm of theory.
In criticism, the most important thing is to find truth that is completely equal to objective facts and does not cause doubt. You cannot make judgments based on subjective imagination, because there is no factual basis, and judgments made at will cannot be convinced. The same reason, others are also Feel free to put forward a certain point of view to refute your thesis, so that the argument will go on endlessly, and no conclusions can be drawn, even no lessons can be obtained.
As mentioned earlier, both the discussion of causes and the testing of means can enter the realm of theory and the realm of general truth. If a theory has passed the test of practice and has become the truth, what has been determined in the theory can be used as the basis when investigating, and there is no need to go back and verify it again. However, when this theory has not yet become the truth, it must be traced back to the end to verify it again. If this happens often, writers will feel very annoyed, because there will be so many things to do, and it is almost impossible to research and analyze each problem from the source of the problem. In this case, in order to limit the scope of his own investigation, the author has to be content with the claims he put forward at will. Although he himself does not think that these claims are put forward at will, in the eyes of others, they are very arbitrary. , Because these theories themselves are not clear enough, and they have not been confirmed by practice.
Therefore, the theory that has been tested in practice, that is, truth, is the important basis for criticism. If criticism does not rely on reasonable theories, it is generally impossible to teach people a lesson. In other words, it cannot be convincing and can stand the test.
If you think that the theory can include every abstract truth, the task of criticism is only to examine whether the actual situation conforms to the corresponding law. This is also a misunderstanding. If it is stipulated that the sacred theory must not be violated in the slightest when criticizing, this is simply the practice of a ridiculous nerd. The spirit of creating theories of meticulous analysis of problems should also guide critical activities. Moreover, only with this spirit of criticism can it enter the real theoretical research field and further explain the issues that are very important to it. On the contrary, if the theory is merely copied mechanically in the criticism, it is impossible to achieve the purpose of the criticism. The more affirmative conclusions drawn from theoretical research, such as principles, rules, or methods, become rigid clauses, the less universal they are, and the more they are far away from the nature of absolute truth. These theories are intended for people to apply and guide people's actual actions. As to whether they are applicable, it can only be determined by actual judgment. When criticizing, these theoretical conclusions must not be used to measure all laws and standards, but they should be used as the basis for judgment based on actual conditions. In the general battle formation, the cavalry cannot be on the same front as the infantry, but should be behind the infantry. This is a common sense rule in tactics. However, it is foolish to criticize any configuration that violates this rule without analysis. . In the process of criticism, we should first explore the reasons for violating this regulation. Only when the reasons for violating the regulation are found to be insufficient, can we cite theoretical regulations to refute it. For another example, in theory, it has been clearly pointed out that multiple offenses will reduce the chance of victory. However, in the case of multiple offenses and failures, the failure is considered to be caused by multiple offenses without analysis; or In the case of multiple offensives and victory in the battle, on the other hand, it is said that the theoretical regulations are wrong. Both of these views are one-sided and unreasonable. Both of the above viewpoints are resisted by the critical analytical spirit. Theoretically, the conclusion drawn after analysis and research is the main basis for criticism. If it has been confirmed theoretically, there is no need to re-determine it during the criticism. Theoretically, clear regulations are made to have ready-made arguments available for criticism.
The task of criticism is to explore the result of the means and whether the means adopted are compatible with the purpose. This task is easy to accomplish when the cause and the result, the purpose and the means are both direct.
If an army receives a surprise attack and therefore cannot fully exert its combat power in an orderly manner, then the effect of the surprise attack, that is, the purpose of the surprise attack will be achieved. If it has been theoretically determined that the use of encirclement and attack tactics in a battle can achieve greater victory, but the confidence of victory is small, then the key to the question is whether the commander uses this method for the purpose of achieving greater victory. If so, the method he chose is correct; if he uses this method, the purpose is to obtain a more sure victory, and he did not proceed from the specific situation, as he has seen in the past, only based on the encirclement and attack To make a choice by the general nature, then he must make mistakes because he misunderstood the nature of the means.
Here, it is not difficult to critically explore the reasons and test methods. As long as the focus is on the most direct result and purpose, things will become easy. If people put aside the connection with the whole and only examine the direct relationship of things, then of course they can do so at will.